Politicsseized on the fact that the restrictions would go into effect only in November, if Clinton was elected, meaning donors could race to give money before the deadline — but in time to curry favor with a Democratic nominee who is leading in the polls.

The left-leaning columnist Jonathan Chait wrote on the website of New York magazineFridaythat the new policy is an “inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation” and demonstrates that Clinton “has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.”

Even with the restrictions, he noted, wealthy individuals would have the opportunity to use foundation donations as “chits.” “Ultimately, there is no way around this problem without closing down the Clinton Foundation altogether,” he wrote.

The foundation is not required by law to disclose its donors, but it has published those names since Clinton was nominated to be secretary of state by President Obama. The disclosure was required under an ethics agreement she negotiated with the Obama administration, as was the requirement that new foreign government donations be submitted to the State Department for vetting. If questions arose, the agreement allowed for the White House to weigh in.

Those rules allowed the foundation to accept millions of dollars while Clinton was in office from seven foreign governments that had already been giving, including nations with which the United States has had complicated relations, such as Qatar and Oman. Foundation officials also later acknowledged that it had accepted a $500,000 donation from Algeria without receiving permission from the State Department, as required by the agreement.

More than half of the Clinton Foundation’s major donors would be prevented from contributing to the charity under the self-imposed ban on corporate and foreign donors the foundation said this week it would adopt if Hillary Clinton won the White House, according to a new Washington Post analysis of foundation donations.

The findings underscore the extent to which the Clintons’ sprawling global charity has come to rely on financial support from industries and overseas interests, a point that has drawn criticism from Republicans and some liberals who have said the donations represent conflicts of interest for a potential president.

The analysis, which examined donor lists posted on the foundation’s website, found that 53 percent of the donors who have given $1 million or more to the charity are corporations or foreign citizens, groups or governments. The list includes the governments of Saudi Arabia and Australia, the British bank Barclay’s, and major U.S. companies such as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil.

The foundation’s announcement drew skepticismFridayfrom the right and the left as critics wondered why the Clintons have never before cut off corporate and overseas money to their charity — and why they would wait until after the election to do so.

The restrictions would be more stringent than those put in place while Clinton was secretary of state, when the foundation was merely required to seek State Department approval to accept new donations from foreign governments — permitting the charity to accept millions of dollars from governments and wealthy interests all over the world. They would also be stricter than the policy adopted when Clinton launched her campaign that placed some limits on foreign government funding but allowed corporate and individual donations.

Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator who was a leading surrogate for Clinton’s rival in the Democratic primary race, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), said the restrictions were a good step but should be imposed immediately.

“In my opinion, and in the opinion of lots of Americans, this should have been done long ago,” she said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tweetedFridaythat the Clintons’ continued acceptance of those dollars during the presidential campaign is a “massive, ongoing conflict of interest.”

Others questioned why Clinton had now decided that the foundation should rule out donations that she apparently thought were acceptable during her tenure as the country’s top diplomat. “Is it ok to accept foreign and corporate money when Secretary of State but not when POTUS???” Donald Trump Jr., son of the Republican nominee, tweetedThursdaynight.

Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian said that the limits would be imposed “to avoid perception issues while ensuring the people who depend on our programs continue to be served.”

Minassian did not directly answer questions about why the restrictions would be tighter than they were when Clinton was at State. As for why they would not be imposed until after the election, he said that the foundation did not want to presume the outcome and that taking action “before then would needlessly hurt people who are being helped by our charitable work around the world.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, said the constraints on the foundation while Clinton was secretary of state already went beyond legal requirements but the foundation submitted to “even more rigorous standards” when Clinton declared her candidacy and “is pledging to go even further if she wins.”

“At each step, the standard set by the foundation has been unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics,” he said.

The announcement of the new restrictions appeared to be a response to an ongoing political headache for Hillary Clinton, who has faced months of damaging criticism of her State Department tenure amid controversies over her use of a private email server and allegations that foundation donors received special access.

Citing the release of emails showing top Clinton aides responding to requests for meetings with donors, Donald Trump has accused Clinton of creating a “pay to play” climate in her agency — a charge she has denied.

Nearly half of likely voters, 47 percent, said they were bothered a lot by the foundation’s acceptance of money from foreign countries while Clinton was secretary of state, according to a Bloomberg Newspoll in June. That’s similar to the 45 percent of voters who were bothered by Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns.

The new policy was devised by Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton, and approved at a foundation board meetingThursday, according to a foundation official.

4
comments:

Seriously, Right Wing Dad, the Rightwing and the corporate media have been hounding HRC for over a quarter of a century.

If the foundation was corrupted, the e-mails classified, and Benghazi was due to gross negligence, don't you think she'd have been locked up years ago? And, no, you can't play the conspiracy card.

Since 2002, the Clinton Health Initiative has worked to lower the cost of HIV/AIDs drugs to numerous African nations. It’s estimated that over 9 million people have benefited from this. Would you prefer that the Clintons raise money to build luxury golf courses as Trump has done?

@gruaud: I bet your boy Obummer wishes that the Clinton's would build luxury golf courses as Trump has done. That uppity Negro sure as hell loves to play golf while Rome burns....and that's a fact, Jack.

No run along, you liebural fool...don't you have some more liberal Kool-aid to consume.

Mike Hawk

P.S. - If Hillary wins on November 8th, she will spend half her first year in a court room. What a Pinocchio LIAR that cunt truly is.

@gruaud: I bet your boy Obummer wishes that the Clintons would build luxury golf courses as Trump has done. That uppity Negro sure as hell loves to play golf while Rome burns....and that's a fact, Jack.

Now run along, you lie-bural fool...don't you have some more liberal Kool-aid to consume.

Mike Hawk

P.S. - If Hillary wins on November 8th, she will spend half her first year in a court room. What a Pinocchio LIAR that cunt truly is.

Welcome to the Right-Wing Forward Museum

MyRightWingDad.net is a museum dedicated to following the course of American history through a unique lens -- the emails "Red-America" forwards worldwide. Take a look around the archive using the keywords below, and leave a comment or two.

This museum displays unedited, often offensive and untrue material with no endorsement intended by curators or contributors.